Bitch Media - Mitt Romneyhttp://bitchmagazine.org/taxonomy/term/11313/0
enDaddy Issues: Murphy Brown and the Persistent Pestilence of Single Moms http://bitchmagazine.org/post/daddy-issues-murphy-brown-and-the-persistent-pestilence-of-single-moms
<p><img style="float: right;" src="http://farm9.staticflickr.com/8486/8217755375_911c34c75d_o.jpg" alt="A pajamad Murphy Brown holds her baby and appears to be letting out a cry of anguish to the heavens." /></p>
<p>While men who unexpectedly become single parents are often <a href="/post/daddy-issues-how-surprise-single-fatherhood-makes-mens-lives-worth-living" target="_blank">presented as inspirational</a>, women in the same position tend to be vilified. Take <a href="/article/backlash-action" target="_blank">Murphy Brown</a>.</p>
<p>The show's eponymous lead character, a television journalist, became pregnant in her early forties and soon discovered her baby daddy didn't want to be a father. So this wealthy, talented, intelligent woman set about raising a baby on her own. Responsible, you might think. At the very least, making the best of things. Not according to then-Vice President Dan Quayle, who considered Murphy to be a scourge of humanity.</p>
<p>Back in 1992, Quayle used the occasion of the L.A. Riots as an opportunity for a little moralizing about family values. While he did at least acknowledge men's role in creating single-parent families (saying, "Failing to support children one has fathered is wrong,") he focused his criticism on Candace Bergen's fictional character, ranting: "It doesn't help matters when primetime TV has Murphy Brown — a character who supposedly epitomizes today's intelligent, highly paid, professional woman — mocking the importance of fathers by bearing a child alone, and calling it just another 'lifestyle choice'."</p>
<p>But Brown wasn't mocking the importance of fathers, just making a pragmatic decision. So the show hit back with a subplot in which characters discussed Quayle's speech, which included Brown's response that, "Perhaps it's time for the Vice President to expand his definition and recognize that, whether by choice or circumstance, families come in all shapes and sizes." An admirable message, but one that still doesn't seem to have seeped into the popular conscience. Last year, a poll of almost 3,000 Americans by Pew Research Center found that 70 percent of respondents considered single mothers bad for society. (The center didn't ask the same question about single fathers, because, according to the senior editor, it never occurred to them to do so.) As <a href="http://www.npr.org/2011/02/24/134031175/For-Single-Mothers-Stigma-Difficult-To-Shake" target="_blank">NPR's report on the survey</a> concludes, "Research shows that Americans are increasingly tolerant of all kinds of families, with one exception — single women raising children alone."</p>
<p>Isabel Sawhill, a senior fellow in economic studies at think tank the Brookings Institution, wrote a piece for the Washington Post earlier this year <a href="http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/20-years-later-it-turns-out-dan-quayle-was-right-about-murphy-brown-and-unmarried-moms/2012/05/25/gJQAsNCJqU_story_1.html" target="_blank">revisiting Dan Quayle's statements about single moms</a> and concluding he was correct. She writes, "Unless the media, parents and other influential leaders celebrate marriage as the best environment for raising children, the new trend — bringing up baby alone — may be irreversible." I'm not sure where she's been over the last 20 years, but <a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2012/07/15/us/two-classes-in-america-divided-by-i-do.html?_r=0" target="_blank">the media hardly celebrates single motherhood</a>. When it comes to TV, for every <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lorelai_Gilmore" target="_blank">Lorelai Gilmore</a>, there's a <a href="http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0462128/" target="_blank">Christine Campbell</a>, <a href="http://cougartown.wikia.com/wiki/Jules_Cobb" target="_blank">Jules Cobb</a>, <a href="http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0410975/" target="_blank">Susan Delfino</a>, and <a href="http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1637727/" target="_blank">Sarah Linden</a>: respectively irresponsible, self-medicating, ditzy, and unreliable. (Not to mention the seriously negligent messed-up moms usually played by <a href="http://uk.imdb.com/name/nm0001849/" target="_blank">Kathleen Wilhoite.</a>) Plus, politicians haven't stopped blaming single mothers for society's problems. Most recently, Mitt Romney held them responsible for gun violence, in remarks that were clearly aimed not just at single moms, but at <a href="http://www.huffingtonpost.com/monique-ruffin/mitt-romney-single-parents-and-gun-violence_b_1983775.html?utm_hp_ref=black-voices" target="_blank">working class women of color</a>.</p>
<p>While the link between households led by single mothers and violent crime might be cut and dried to Romney, it's likely he's studying the wrong metric: the problem isn't parenting, and it certainly isn't race; it's <a href="http://blobolobolob.blogspot.com/2009/02/problem-with-single-mothers.html" target="_blank">poverty</a>. Women make up the majority of single parent households and at least half of the women who now become mothers are <a href="http://blobolobolob.blogspot.com/2009/02/problem-with-single-mothers.html" target="_blank">likely to spend some time as a single mom</a>, yet women are routinely paid less than men. And intersecting oppressions only make advancement harder. Yet it's white, upper middle class single fathers who are lionized, and the women making every effort to get by who are demonized.</p>
<p>In popular culture (and in life) men who become primary caregivers are often portrayed as heroes doing something especially impressive, whereas women are seen to be merely doing their job, or just fulfilling a biological urge. A recent episode of <em>Grey's Anatomy</em> even articulated this, with the once-awesome Dr. Bailey telling new mom Dr. Grey that as a (single) mom herself, she couldn't concentrate with <a href="http://happyrappy.tumblr.com/post/35623822457/the-latest-greys-anatomy-was-a-refreshingly" target="_blank">a baby crying in the background</a>: "You know why men think they can run the world and women can't? Because of crying babies… We can all hear it, I can hear it, Dr. Ross out there can hear it, only difference is the crying doesn't affect him, but you and I are genetically predisposed to respond to crying babies."</p>
<p>So, women's inability to run the world, a troubling rise in gun crime, and the morals of a generation all fall on the shoulders of mothers? Add that to the care and feeding of their kids, often under difficult financial circumstances, and it's possible they might just be under a little too much pressure.</p>
<p><strong>Previously:</strong> <a href="/post/daddy-issues-how-surprise-single-fatherhood-makes-mens-lives-worth-living" target="_blank">How Surprise Single Fatherhood Makes Men's Lives Worth Living</a>; <a href="/post/daddy-issues-blossom-and-the-trouble-with-%E2%80%9Ccool%E2%80%9D-dads" target="_blank"><em>Blossom</em> and the Trouble with "Cool" Dads</a>.</p>
http://bitchmagazine.org/post/daddy-issues-murphy-brown-and-the-persistent-pestilence-of-single-moms#commentsDaddy IssuesDan QuayleGilmore GirlsGrey's AnatomyLorelai GilmoreMiranda BaileyMitt RomneyMurphy BrownTVThu, 29 Nov 2012 19:14:02 +0000Diane Shipley20121 at http://bitchmagazine.orgWomen of the Internet Tell Mitt Romney to Shove It in His Binderhttp://bitchmagazine.org/post/binders-full-of-women-mitt-romney-debates-feminist-magazine-meme
<p>If you watched the second US presidential debate last night I've got four words for you: "binders full of women." (If you didn't watch the debate, here are <a href="http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/binders-of-women-get-the-transcript-how-second-obama-romney-debate-played-on-social-nets/2012/10/17/cf4ad11e-1813-11e2-a346-f24efc680b8d_story.html"target="_blank">a few more words</a> for you: In response to a question about equal pay for women, Romney told moderator Candy Crowley that while he was governor of Massachusetts, he sought qualified women for his administration by going to "a number of women's groups asking, 'Can you help us find folks?' and they brought us whole binders full of women." Yeah.)</p>
<p><img src="http://farm9.staticflickr.com/8189/8096030104_058f3243c9.jpg" alt="Mitt Romney facebook page with binder background" /><br />
<em>Binder? I hardly know 'er!</em></p>
<p>During a 90-minute peacocking session—Candy Crowley, you deserve a medal for moderating that alpha brofest—that was filled with sound bites, "binders full of women" is the one that stuck. And it stuck <em>hard</em>. At the time of this post (three hours post-debate), a <a href="http://bindersfullofwomen.tumblr.com/"target="_blank">widely shared Tumblr</a>, <a href="https://twitter.com/Romneys_Binder"target="_blank">Twitter account</a>, and <a href="https://www.facebook.com/romneybindersfullofwomen?ref=stream"target="_blank">Facebook group</a> were already up, running (200,000+ fans), and hilarious.</p>
<p><img src="http://farm9.staticflickr.com/8186/8096040019_9a29b7b20b.jpg" alt="tweet from Mitt Romneys binder" /><br />
<em>It's Ladies Night (in my binder)!</em></p>
<p>So why the binders meme? Well for starters, Mitt Romney is not exactly known as a champion of women. In fact, over the course of his unending campaign, he's proven himself to be <a href="http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2012/oct/17/romney-binders-full-of-women"target="_blank">quite the opposite</a>. And like so many questions he's dodged so far, instead of answering the question about equal pay, Romney pulled an anecdote out of his ass about a time he <a href="http://www.newyorker.com/online/blogs/closeread/2012/10/mitt-romney-and-the-question-of-charity.html"target="_blank">used his largesse to help one person/a binder of people</a>. A nice story, but hardly a Trapper Keeper full of fairness and equality. </p>
<p>As Emma Keller <a href="http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2012/oct/17/romney-binders-full-of-women"target="_blank">puts it</a>, "The [binder] phrase objectified and dehumanized women. It played right into the perception that so many women have feared about a Romney administration—that a president Romney would be sexist and set women back. And it turns out the way Romney presented it—that he asked for a study of women in leadership positions—<a href="http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2012/oct/16/obama-romney-second-debate-live#block-507e2fe658f91d7bbadac763"target="_blank">wasn't true anyway</a>." She's right; <a href="http://blog.thephoenix.com/BLOGS/talkingpolitics/archive/2012/10/16/mind-the-binder.aspx"target="_blank">it wasn't</a>.</p>
<p><img src="http://farm9.staticflickr.com/8326/8096023234_77216204cd.jpg" alt="Mitt Romney in front of a group of women holding a binder. Text reads Lord of Three Rings" /><br />
<em>Three rings to rule them all.</em></p>
<p>Like Romney's Big Bird comment from the first debate, his statement was asinine AND picturing "binders full of women" (or <a href="http://thelede.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/10/05/romneys-attack-on-big-bird-sows-confusion-abroad-and-feeds-it-at-home/"target="_blank">the firing of a giant bird</a>) is also funny. And since—despite <a href="/post/douchebag-decree-daniel-tosh-rape-culture-feminist-magazine-comedy-jokes-women"target="_blank">so much gum-flapping to the contrary</a>—many feminists are really fucking funny, a delightful meme was born. Delightful because it pokes fun at the Romney campaign while reminding people that <a href="http://www.nwlc.org/resource/wage-gap-faqs"target="_blank">the wage gap is realer than Candy Crowley's moderating skills</a> and <a href="http://www.politicususa.com/mitt-romneys-misogynistic-agenda-designed-punish-woman.html"target="_blank">Mitt Romney is a misogynist who wants to restrict the rights of the women he's got trapped in those binders</a>. That hypocrisy, and the way the Romney binder jokes underscore it while making us laugh at the same time, is why this photo of Hillary Clinton is the most popular version of the meme yet:</p>
<p><img src="http://farm9.staticflickr.com/8185/8096023322_0a898f0890.jpg" alt="hillary clinton making fun of mitt for using binders" /><br />
<em>FWIW, binders can be useful if they are filled with paper and not, say, women.</em></p>
<p>Mitt Romney has ignored women and women's issues at every turn of his campaign, and he can't expect to talk a semi-good binder game at this point and get away with it. Using women as a talking point to get votes when you're planning on throwing women's rights under the bus is not okay, and the whip-smart funny women of the Internet aren't letting Romney get away with it. Another example of this righteous bullshit-calling is this SchlepLabs video from Monday where Rosie Perez calls Romney to task for saying he'd have it <a href="http://www.cnn.com/2012/09/19/opinion/navarrette-romney-latino/index.html"target="_blank">easier if he were Latino</a>:</p>
<p><iframe width="560" height="315" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/EVIrNxba0ls" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe></p>
<p>Mitt Romney doesn't care about women, and the women of the Internet are using humor, smarts, and technology to prove it. In an election cycle that is downright depressing for feminists, memes like these are the silver lining in the War on Women cloud. </p>
<p>Now, who wants to wear a binder with me for Halloween?</p>
http://bitchmagazine.org/post/binders-full-of-women-mitt-romney-debates-feminist-magazine-meme#comments2012 electionBarack Obamainternet cultureMitt RomneySocial CommentaryWed, 17 Oct 2012 05:50:12 +0000Kelsey Wallace19380 at http://bitchmagazine.orgFertile Ground: Heartland Institute Pulls "Unabomber" Climate Change Billboard http://bitchmagazine.org/post/fertile-ground-climate-change-activism-unabomber-heartland-ecofeminism
<p><img src="http://farm9.staticflickr.com/8028/7162553178_5f2ae6718f_o.jpg" alt="billboard featuring Unabomber Ted Kaczynski" width="484" height="272" /></p>
<p>If this proves anything, it's that voices matter. </p>
<p>The conservative organization Heartland Institute <a href="http://www.csmonitor.com/Science/2012/0507/Heartland-Institute-s-digital-billboards-make-bombastic-comparisons-video"target="_blank">pulled a billboard recently featuring a photo of "Unabomber" Ted Kaczynski</a>, with his supposed voice saying in scary maroon letters: "I still believe in Global Warming. Do you?" (Two other billboards featured Fidel Castro and Charles Manson. Of course they did.)</p>
<p>I had a few thoughts upon reading about this event:</p>
<p><strong>1. Boy, those conservatives sure like to appeal to the lowest common denominator.</strong> </p>
<p>Just like the McCain/Palin "We-don't-care-how-we-get-elected" trainwreck of a campaign—which appealed to many sectors of conservatives—showed us, many right-wing groups don't focus on one's intellect or ability to think critically. They just want to win, and they will appeal to your surface-level, shallow-thinking gut reactions to do so. LET'S JUST WIN JUST SAY ANYTHING, LIKE LIKENING GLOBAL WARMING TO TED KACZYNSKI CUZ NO ONE LIKES HIM, RIGHT? </p>
<p><strong>2. Wait, this really works?</strong></p>
<p>Even those who are "undecided" can't possibly be swayed by such fatuous tactics, can they? I'm confused as to how this is intended to get anyone to even dismiss climate change. (Do you dislike homemade bombs and men with unkempt beards? Well, then don't believe in global warming!) Maybe I am just bewildered by climate change's nonbelievers in general, but this strategy seems particularly fruitless. Heartland's website even makes the absurd claim that, "The most prominent advocates of global warming aren't scientists. They are murderers, tyrants, and madmen." Well, actually, the most prominent advocates are indeed scientists, as well as Nobel Prize winners, well-respected academics, etc., etc. </p>
<p><strong>3. Climate Change exists, and it is a crucial ecofeminist issue.</strong></p>
<p>Considering the extravagant and mega-polluting lifestyles we (Americans primarily) are encouraged to lead, climate change makes sense. It even seems obvious: We are using up the planet. For those who have read and understood some of the science behind it, it is understood that climate change is a worldwide crisis, affecting people everywhere—and it is much more frightening for those in developing countries, especially women. A <a href="http://www.uneca.org/acpc/about_acpc/docs/UNDP-GENDER-CLIMATE-CHANGE-RESOURCE-GUIDE.pdf"target="_blank">2007 UN report on gender and climate change</a> talks about how, because of their roles in society as well as the discrimination and severe poverty they suffer, women are more gravely affected by the effects of climate change. The consequences of climate change are many. Can we get a billboard about that, please?</p>
<p><strong>4. Speaking up works.</strong> </p>
<p>People got mad. This billboard was taken down in less than a day. Of course, that's not the end of the story, as this group has just gotten started. Visit <a href="http://act.engagementlab.org/sign/climate_killers"target="_blank">Forecast the Facts</a> to sign now and tell the corporations that fund the Heartland Institute that their "persuasion tactics" aren't okay. </p>
<p>Climate change has already wreaked havoc on the planet, and it's going to get worse. We need conscious people in this world, and we need them now. Our voices were heard to put a stop to something; now we need them to put a start to something.</p>
<p><strong>Previously:</strong> <a href="/post/fertile-ground-bryant-terrys-the-inspired-vegan-social-justice-ecofeminism"target="_blank">Bryant Terry's The Inspired Vegan</a>, <a href="/post/fertile-ground-want-to-fix-the-world-do-permaculture-ecofeminism"target="_blank">Want to Fix the World? Practice Permaculture.</a></p>
http://bitchmagazine.org/post/fertile-ground-climate-change-activism-unabomber-heartland-ecofeminism#commentsclimate changeecofeminismMitt RomneywomenSocial CommentaryWed, 09 May 2012 22:29:16 +0000Alison Parker16760 at http://bitchmagazine.orgDouchebag Decree: Richard Grenell, Romney Spokesperson and Sexist Tweeterhttp://bitchmagazine.org/post/douchebag-decree-richard-grenell-gop-sexist-twitter-romney-politics-feminism
<p><img src="http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3214/3008635758_a8c6604670.jpg" alt="Douchebag Decree logo in red and blue letters it says Ye Olde Douchebag Decree. Bitch hereby declares the following person a total douchebag" /></p>
<p>GOP presidential candidate Mitt Romney's sexism is old news at this point, but hey, it's election season and he has to stay in the news, right? Romney doubled down on the misogyny last Thursday by hiring <a href="http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/the-fix/post/who-is-richard-grenell/2012/04/24/gIQA9xnleT_blog.html"target="_blank">Richard Grenell</a> as his national security and foreign policy adviser. Grenell, formerly of the Bush administration, kicked off his first week on the job by <a href="http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/04/22/richard-grenell-mitt-romney-online-attacks_n_1442726.html"target="_blank">deleting a bunch of sexist shit from his Twitter account</a>. </p>
<p><img src="http://farm9.staticflickr.com/8022/6970448200_f6c4b76848_o.jpg" alt="grenell, a white man, raising his hand." /><br />
<em>Sexist tweeters, raise your hands!</em></p>
<p>Romney's hiring of Grenell has been controversial among right-wingers because the new adviser is openly gay. The thinking is that, perhaps, <a href="http://www.towleroad.com/2012/04/more-on-the-importance-of-mitt-romney-hiring-richard-grenell.html"target="_blank">this move will help Romney appeal to LGBT Republicans</a> and be read as a "shout out to the homosexual lobby." While some gay voters might have been psyched by this hire initially, many of them probably got un-psyched once Grenell was revealed to be a complete douche with a track record of snarky sexism. Behold, a collection of his tweets (captured by <a href="http://storify.com/thinkprogress/richard-grenell-s-sexist-tweets"target="_blank">ThinkProgress</a> before he deleted more than 800 of them, natch):</p>
<script src="http://storify.com/thinkprogress/richard-grenell-s-sexist-tweets.js"></script><p><noscript>[<a href="http://storify.com/thinkprogress/richard-grenell-s-sexist-tweets" target="_blank">View the story "Richard Grenell's Sexist Tweets" on Storify</a>]</noscript></p>
<p>I can't decide which is douchier: Is it the trashing of Hillary Clinton, Rachel Maddow, Jessica Simpson, and Callista Gingrich's looks? The open mocking of condoms? Or maybe it's the dig at the "first daughter," a 13-year old girl? Grenell has since <a href="http://www.politico.com/blogs/burns-haberman/2012/04/grenell-sorry-for-tongueincheek-tweets-121170.html"target="_blank">apologized for what he referred to as his "tongue-in-cheek" remarks</a>:</p>
<blockquote><p>my tweets were written to be tongue-in-cheek and humorous but I can now see how they can also be hurtful. I didn't mean them that way and will remove them from twitter. I apologize for any hurt they caused.</p></blockquote>
<p>Ah, the ol' "it was just a joke" response. Grenell, who is known as a "<a href="http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/the-fix/post/who-is-richard-grenell/2012/04/24/gIQA9xnleT_blog.html"target="_blank">master of spin</a>," has been spinning his tweets (and deleting them) all week. While he and his Twitter followers may very well have found his jokes about Madeleine Albright and clip-on hair HILARIOUS, it doesn't change the fact that he has a public record of sexist "humor"—a record that clearly didn't bother the Romney camp.</p>
<p>On its own, this tweetapalooza might seem frivolous. After all, I myself tweeted about <a href="https://twitter.com/#!/KelseyMWallace/status/195349978217070592"target="_blank">a failed attempt at soup</a> just last night, but that doesn't mean I necessarily have strong opinions about soup (OK, I do, but that's neither here nor there). In the context of the "<a href="/post/the-womens-vote-the-daily-show-video-sexism-politics"target="_blank">War on Women</a>," however, Grenell's remarks are much more telling. Romney has been flapping his gums all over the place lately, telling anyone who'll listen that he cares about women voters and is not the sexist jerkstore we think he is. While most of us probably didn't believe him before, his claims that he is <a href="http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/the-fix/post/a-war-on-women-trap-for-mitt-romney/2012/04/11/gIQAtym2AT_blog.html"target="_blank">the candidate most concerned with women's issues</a> resonate even less in light of his hiring of Grenell.</p>
<p>Grenell may have scrubbed his Twitter account and <a href="http://www.richardgrenell.com/"target="_blank">his personal website</a>, but his douchiness remains. And while Romney doesn't seem to care, women voters certainly should. </p>
<p><strong>Previously:</strong> <a href="/post/douchebag-decree-sweden-racist-cake-performance-art"target="_blank">That Racist Swedish Cake and Everyone Who Had a Piece in It.</a>, <a href="/post/belvedere"target="_blank">Belvedere Takes Lack of Consent to New Level</a></p>
http://bitchmagazine.org/post/douchebag-decree-richard-grenell-gop-sexist-twitter-romney-politics-feminism#commentsDouchebag DecreeMitt RomneysexismTwitterDouchebag Decree Thu, 26 Apr 2012 20:50:26 +0000Kelsey Wallace16511 at http://bitchmagazine.orgThe 99%: Republican Classism Rounduphttp://bitchmagazine.org/post/the-99-republican-classism-roundup-politics-poverty-feminism
<p>The Republican presidential candidates deservedly get a good amount of critical coverage due to the homophobic, racist, and misogynistic rhetoric that they seem to spout at every campaign stop.&nbsp; This election, though, is one of the first times in my memory that the candidates' classism and profound oblivion regarding their own privilege have really taken center stage. While I'm sure there will be more gaffes to come, I'm wrapping up this series this week, and I thought a roundup of the more classist political soundbites might be a good parting gift.</p>
<p><img src="http://i.huffpost.com/gen/490179/MITT-ROMNEY-RMONEY.jpg" alt="Mitt Romney standing in front of an American flag with a group of boys wearing tshirts that spell out MONEY" /></p>
<p>&nbsp;</p>
<h3>Mitt Romney</h3>
<p>&nbsp;</p>
<p>I thought I'd pretty much covered <a href="/post/the-99-class-warfare-and-the-privileged-politics-of-mitt-romney">Romney's privilege and how it relates to his political standpoint</a>—but then he goes and outdoes himself.</p>
<blockquote><p>I'm in this race because I care about Americans. I'm not concerned about the very poor—we have a safety net there. If it needs repair, I'll fix it. I'm not concerned about the very rich—they're doing just fine. I'm concerned about the very heart of America, the 90-95 percent of Americans who right now are struggling.</p></blockquote>
<p>So, are the very poor not Americans?&nbsp; Are they not part of the 90-95 percent of the country who "right now are struggling"?&nbsp; Or, they are Americans and they are struggling, but they're beneath Mitt Romney's care and notice?&nbsp; Mitt says he'll repair the safety net if it needs it, but he's not acknowledging that by the time Americans are using that safety net, the system has probably already failed them.&nbsp; He's not acknowledging the safety net already has holes in it large enough for entire families to fall through: when their unemployment insurance runs out and they haven't been able to find a job, when federal allocations to food benefits and school lunches are cut and American children are going hungry, when they can't access health insurance and face an emergency.&nbsp; And yet, Mitt took care of that last one in Massachusetts, which implies to me he has some concept of what low-income families actually need to get by.&nbsp; So why is he saying awful lines like this?&nbsp; It seems that classist flippancy has become part of what conservative voters want to hear in the primary, which might be more of a grim reality than the fact that there are candidates willing to supply it.</p>
<p>&nbsp;</p>
<h3>Newt Gingrich</h3>
<p>&nbsp;</p>
<p>In response to Mitt's quote above, Newt said, "The founding fathers meant the very poor… I am concerned about all Americans." But Newt has some very specific ideas about both <em>why</em> and <em>how</em> to help struggling families.</p>
<blockquote><p>Really poor children in really poor neighborhoods have no habits of working and have nobody around them who works. So they literally have no habit of showing up on Monday. They have no habit of staying all day. They have no habit of 'I do this and you give me cash,' unless it's illegal.</p></blockquote>
<p>Poor parents are lazy and display a poor work ethic—if they weren't lazy, they wouldn't be poor, obviously!&nbsp; Newt's solution is to eliminate the "very stupid" child labor laws, which were actively fought for by labor unions and American families who wanted to keep children out of unsafe working conditions.&nbsp; These laws were frequently paired with compulsory education, which required children to attend school—effectively helping ensure they has access to education.&nbsp; But that's silly, says Newt, because the children could just be working at the schools:</p>
<blockquote><p>You have a very poor neighborhood. You have kids who are required under law to go to school. They have no money. They have no habit of work. What if you paid them part-time in the afternoon to sit at the clerical office and greet people when they came in? What if you paid them to work as the assistant librarian? And I'd pay them as early as is reasonable and practical.</p></blockquote>
<p>Firstly, you don't pay people "as early as is reasonable and practical." You pay them when they begin working for you.&nbsp; Secondly, if our schools have extra money lying around, perhaps we could use it to better pay our teachers rather than violating child labor laws and paying young people to greet whoever walks through the door.&nbsp; And thirdly, poor children do have a "habit of work."&nbsp; They are more likely to help with caring for younger siblings and housework than their middle-class counterparts, mostly because their parents are likely to have longer and less flexible work hours, and are less likely to be able to afford outside childcare.&nbsp; And they attend school—that's their job.&nbsp; They need an education so that they can become informed, involved citizens who know better than to vote for Newt Gingrich.</p>
<p>&nbsp;</p>
<h3>Rick Santorum</h3>
<p>&nbsp;</p>
<p>As a native Pennsylvanian, I'd really hoped that I'd voted against Rick Santorum for the last time in 2006, when he lost by 18 points—the largest margin of defeat for an incumbent senator in nearly thirty years.&nbsp; While he's better known for homophobic remarks so offensive that <a href="http://spreadingsantorum.com/" target="_blank">this happens</a>, Rick dishes out his fair share of classist remarks, too:</p>
<blockquote><p>They're just pushing harder and harder to get more and more of you dependent upon them so they can get your vote. That's what the bottom line is. I don't want to make black people's lives better by giving them somebody else's money; I want to give them the opportunity to go out and earn the money.</p></blockquote>
<p>Now, Rick says he didn't say "black people."&nbsp; He definitely did, but let's pretend for one second that he didn't, that this wasn't also an incredibly racist conflation of blackness and poverty, in addition to being classist.&nbsp; Let's suspend disbelief momentarily and consider his explanation that he said… "blah people."&nbsp; Referring to people who need public support—who avail themselves of that necessary safety net Mitt Romney is going to fix for us—as "blah people" is dismissive and uncaring at best.&nbsp; More broadly though, this framing of poor people becoming dependent on public benefits is damaging.&nbsp; The stigma around accepting and using benefits is high; and most families look forward to the day when they don't need to use them anymore.&nbsp; They're proud to be able to find a job and to begin to climb their way out of that safety net.&nbsp; Statements like this are a double-edged sword: they build the stigma around benefits making it harder for the people that need them, and the diminish the hard work of so many families to move off of them.</p>
<p>How then, do candidates get away with this?&nbsp; How do they get votes when they make it their business to dismiss, ignore, and ridicule such a significant proportion of the American population?&nbsp; It helps that <a href="http://pewresearch.org/pubs/983/middle-class-by-the-numbers" target="_blank">41% of American families making less than $20,000 per year (below the poverty level) think of themselves as middle class</a>&nbsp;(although this number is from 2008, and things have likely changed since then).&nbsp; Many poor people don't think of themselves as poor, likely in part because of the dehumanizing way poor people are discussed in the media.&nbsp; So when candidates and policymakers are terribly classist, few identify as the group being ridiculed.</p>
<p>And, of course, there's the idea of the American Dream, that even if you're poor now, with hard work you can turn it around and be wealthy one day.&nbsp; To cite my favorite line from <em>The West Wing</em>, "That's the problem with the American dream. It makes everyone concerned for the day they're going to be rich."&nbsp; While few people identify as "poor" today, even fewer see themselves as being poor in the future.&nbsp; So, why <em>not </em>vote for a candidate that denigrates poor people?&nbsp; They're not talking about you now, and their negligent policies won't hurt you in the future.&nbsp; That's how candidates get away with saying such classist remarks and enacting such harmful policies—and they'll continue to get away with it until we, as voters, ensure they don't.</p>
<p><strong>Previously:</strong> <a href="/post/the-99-mamas-with-money-and-parents-in-poverty-parenting-money-feminism" target="_blank">Mamas with Money and Parents in Poverty</a>, <a href="/post/the-99-the-class-difference-between-%E2%80%9Cthe-boy-who-lived%E2%80%9D-and-%E2%80%9Cthe-girl-on-fire%E2%80%9D-part-2" target="_blank">The (Class) Difference Between "The Boy Who Lived" and "The Girl on Fire," Part Two</a></p>
http://bitchmagazine.org/post/the-99-republican-classism-roundup-politics-poverty-feminism#commentsclassisminequalityMitt RomneyNewt GingrichRick SantorumSocial CommentaryWed, 08 Feb 2012 18:14:49 +0000Gretchen Sisson15168 at http://bitchmagazine.orgThe 99%: Class Warfare and the Privileged Politics of Mitt Romneyhttp://bitchmagazine.org/post/the-99-class-warfare-and-the-privileged-politics-of-mitt-romney
<p><img src="http://farm8.staticflickr.com/7159/6642402527_60bd114c03.jpg" alt="Mitt Romney in front of a sign that says ASK MITT ANYTHING. He is in a black suit with a red tie" width="375" height="249" align="left" hspace="10" />
</p><p>Tuesday evening, hours before very narrowly winning the Iowa caucus, Mitt Romney said that President Obama's policies would "<a href="http://www.boston.com/Boston/politicalintelligence/2012/01/mitt-romney-accuses-president-obama-engaging-class-warfare/vApeJAIfEgTgmeYsrJsFBL/index.html">substitute envy for ambition and poison the American spirit by pitting one American against another and engaging in class warfare</a>."</p>
<p>This new darling trope of conservatives—the idea of class warfare broadly, and against the rich, specifically—is a little bit completely infuriating.&nbsp; Fox News has used the term <a href="http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2011/12/22/obama-cant-win-with-crude-class-warfare-in-2012/">again</a> and <a href="http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2011/12/30/class-war-coolidge-response/">again</a> to describe any attempt to bring attention to the inequality in this country. It is, apparently, "class warfare" to point out that the concentration of wealth in this country is held by a very, very small minority of people. I'm sorry, but the class warfare <em>is not in discussing the inequality, but the fact that such extreme inequality exists in the first place.</em>&nbsp; Traditionally, class warfare is understood <em>not</em> to be the practice of criticizing the rich, but the damage to people done by poverty.&nbsp; It's a war with fronts in the workplace (where people face unsafe working conditions, coercion, or union busting), the grocery store (where people can't afford sufficient food for their families, or must face the stigma and judgment that comes with using benefits), the schools, the judicial system, or nearly any other institution. It's practically farcical that the media, controlled by a select few members of the most privileged echelon of society, can co-opt the language of class conflict first developed by Marx and Weber to describe merely drawing attention to inequality.</p>
<p>The bigger farce, though, is Mitt Romney—the <a href="http://blogs.wsj.com/wealth/2012/01/03/romney-is-richest-candidate-in-a-decade/">richest candidate in a decade</a>, and the richest plausible candidate in far longer—claiming the President's policies are class warfare.&nbsp; It's almost as laughable as Romney <a href="http://www.dailykos.com/story/2011/12/14/1045403/-Its-Republican-class-warfare!-Mitt-Romney-slams-Newt-Gingrich-for-spending-$500,000-at-Tiffanys">referring to Newt Gingrich</a> as "a wealthy man… not a middle-class American" as a criticism. Sure, Newt isn't a middle-class American. None of the candidates are. But, you know what Mitt? You have $250 million dollars.&nbsp; You're not even the middle of the top one percent.</p>
<p>This is the thing, though: I think it's okay that you're rich, Mitt. I believe it is possible for wealthy leaders to lead well, provided they listen to their constituents and recognize their privilege.&nbsp; Except for a string of presidents elected during the nineteenth century's burst of populism, all our leaders have been really rich.&nbsp; This is a problem, to be sure, but it's been around for hundreds of years. Fixing it will require a serious overhaul of our class-based institutions, including the campaign finance system and that whole corporations-are-people and money-is-free-speech thing.</p>
<p>The bigger problem, I think, is for someone with as much money as you, Mitt, to stand up there and talk about your political opponent as being very wealthy without acknowledging your own wealth.&nbsp; And I think it's downright absurd for you to stand up there and talk about class warfare as if you haven't reaped the extraordinary benefits of class privilege in our country.</p>
<p><strong>Previously:</strong> <a href="/post/the-99-champagne-toasts-and-caviar-receptions-buying-the-american-wedding"target="_blank">Champagne Toasts and Caviar Receptions: Buying the American Wedding</a>, <a href="/post/the-99-money-cant-buy-you-love-class-feminism-the-bachelor"target="_blank">Money Can't Buy You Love (and it Might Get in the Way)</a></p>
http://bitchmagazine.org/post/the-99-class-warfare-and-the-privileged-politics-of-mitt-romney#comments2012 electioninequalityMitt RomneySocial CommentaryThu, 05 Jan 2012 18:23:44 +0000Gretchen Sisson14503 at http://bitchmagazine.org